Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040012072022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/352/2022 Lindum Yapung W/o Shri Lindum Tato, a Resident of Village Possa, PO/PS Yazali, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 6 Ors. Represented through the Secretary Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Itanagar Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh 791111 3:The Director Age: 0 Occupation : Land Management Itanagar Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh 791111 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Additional Deputy Commissioner Page No.# 2/7 Age: 0 Occupation : Yazali Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Public Work Department (Highway) Itanagar Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. 7:The ARSS Infrastructure Projects Ltd and M/s N T Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Age: 0 Occupation : Limited Liability Partnership (Joint Venture) PO/PS Nirjuli Papumpare Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Abhai Kumar Singh, Takar Bagang,T Tsering Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC(Land Management),Dugmar Kamduk,Rintu Saikia,SC(Highway) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 28-07-2026 Heard Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. R. Milo, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for re-assessment of the alleged damage caused to Page No.# 3/7 her allotted land located at Possa Village, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh and the agricultural and horticultural gardens and other properties standing thereon and for payment of adequate compensation on account of such alleged loss caused during the construction of the Trans Arunachal Highway. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is the owner of land measuring about 3157.25 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Possa Village, Lower Subansiri District, in respect of which a Land Possession Certificate was issued in her favour by the Deputy Commissioner, Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, on 28.11.2006. The petitioner states that since then she has been in peaceful possession of the said land and had developed agriculture and horticulture gardens thereon by investing her hard-earned money. 4. It is contended that during the course of construction of the Trans Arunachal Highway, the respondent authorities, without acquiring her land and without payment of compensation, caused damage to her allotted land, agriculture and horticulture garden and other properties standing thereon. According to the petitioner, although assessment was carried out by the authorities, her land and properties were not properly assessed and compensation was not paid to her on the ground that the same falls beyond the Right of Way (ROW). 5. The petitioner contends that she has approached the concerned authorities on several occasions seeking re-verification and reassessment of the actual damage caused to her land and properties, but no effective steps have been taken. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for fresh assessment and payment of Page No.# 4/7 compensation in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in damaging her private land and properties during the course of execution of the highway project without payment of adequate compensation. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted lawful possession over the land by the competent authority and therefore, the respondent authorities could not have caused damage to the said property without undertaking proper assessment and payment of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner’s representations seeking re-verification and assessment of the actual loss suffered by her have not been properly considered by the authorities. It is therefore submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to undertake fresh verification and assessment and thereafter pay compensation to the petitioner. 8. Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the acquisition for construction of the Trans Arunachal Highway was undertaken under the provisions of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation Act, 1947 and not under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 9. Learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that the land and properties claimed by the petitioner were duly verified by the Fact Finding Committee/Re-verification Committee constituted by the Government Page No.# 5/7 and, upon physical verification, it was found that the petitioner’s land and properties fall beyond the Right of Way (ROW). Therefore, the petitioner was not found entitled to any compensation. It is submitted that the petitioner’s earlier claim was considered and the reassessment exercise was carried out by the Fact Finding Committee after due verification and involvement of the concerned authorities. Hence, no further reassessment or re-verification is warranted. 10. Learned Additional Senior Government Advocate further submits that the claim raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact regarding the alleged damage caused to her land and properties, the location of such properties vis-à-vis the Right of Way and the extent of loss, if any. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Mr. R. Milo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, supports the submissions made on behalf of the State respondents. 12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that her land, agricultural and horticultural properties were damaged during the construction of the Trans Arunachal Highway and that she is entitled to compensation for the alleged loss suffered by her. 14. On the other hand, the respondent authorities have disputed the claim of the petitioner and have specifically stated that upon verification by the Fact Finding Committee, the land and properties claimed by the petitioner Page No.# 6/7 were found to be beyond the Right of Way (ROW) and, therefore, no compensation was payable. 15. Therefore, the questions as to whether the petitioner’s land and properties were actually affected during construction of the highway, whether the same fall within the Right of Way or beyond the Right of Way, the extent of alleged damage caused and the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compensation are all matters which require adjudication of disputed questions of fact. 16. This Court is conscious of the fact that in the case of M/s A. P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. The Tahsildar & Ors. Etc., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 447, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that normally, disputed questions of fact are not investigated or adjudicated by a Writ Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the mere existence of disputed questions of fact, by itself, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Writ Court in granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. 16. However, in the present case, the relief sought for by the petitioner is for payment of compensation towards alleged damages caused to her private land and properties and not for compensation in respect of any land taken away or acquired by the State respondents. The determination of such a claim would necessarily require examination of factual aspects, appreciation of evidence and adjudication of the respective claims of the parties, which cannot appropriately be undertaken by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Page No.# 7/7 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that since no land belonging to the petitioner has been acquired for construction of the Trans Arunachal Highway and the grievance raised by the petitioner relates to alleged damage to private property involving disputed questions of fact, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 19. However, dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the appropriate forum, if so advised, for seeking such relief as may be permissible under law. If such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be considered by the concerned authority/forum in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. JUDGE Comparing Assistant